Flurry of Blows and Special Attacks

[Artoomis]

...It's not. You can attack with an Unarmed Strike or a special monk weapon just as you normally would. You can't attack with a longsword or grapple, since those are neither an Unarmed Strike nor a special monk weapon.

-Hyp.

"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's a special attack. The fact that you can use "WF: Grapple" in no way makes it a weapon, at most, it makes it somewhat like a weapon in that you can take WF.

There is no mention in "Grapple" of what weapon one use to start a grapple. You do "to grab and hold your target." One would assume that means you are not attacking with a manufactured weapon - how does one grab and hold with a longsword, for example? But no mention is actually made of this - as written, you could make the melee touch attack with your longsword. Silly of course, but that is the was the rule is written.

Grapple checks, on the other hand, are clearly made without any weapon modifiers(WF:Longsword, etc. do not apply) so it would make sense to apply WF: Grapple here, though that STILL does not make a grapple check a "weapon."

It really looks to me like anytime you can substitute a "special attack" for an attack that an attack from Flurry should be able to do that, too.

Disarm, etc. can all be done with unarmed attacks (aka unarmed strikes). Even a Grapple can be started with unarmed strikes - at least nothing in the grapple rules indicates it is not started that way.

 

[Artoomis]

If I get multiple attacks, I can hit someone with my longsword multiple times.

Certainly a monk with Flurry is getting multiple attacks... but not with a longsword.

If Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike doesn't apply to my attack roll, it's not an attack with an Unarmed Strike.

It doesn't apply to the touch attack to start a grapple; that's what WF: Grapple is for. Therefore that touch attack is not an attack with an Unarmed Strike (nor a special monk weapon), and is thus illegal... just like the longsword.

-Hyp.

Is it? Or is WF:Grapple for modifying grapple checks. Makes much more sense to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's a special attack. The fact that you can use "WF: Grapple" in no way makes it a weapon, at most, it makes it somewhat like a weapon in that you can take WF.

But it makes it clearly not an attack with an Unarmed Strike... or WF: Unarmed Strike would apply.

It really looks to me like anytime you can substitute a "special attack" for an attack that an attack from Flurry should be able to do that, too.

Absolutely. As long as it's with an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon.

Disarm, etc. can all be done with unarmed attacks (aka unarmed strikes).

Certainly. I have no problem with someone Disarming in a Flurry... with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon.

Even a Grapple can be started with unarmed strikes.

Not at all.

If that were true, WF: Grapple wouldn't exist as a feat.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

From Weapon Focus:

You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.(emphasis mine)

Grapple is not a weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Grapple is not a weapon.

Neither is it an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon.

You can't attack with a ray in a Flurry of Blows either. It's not an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...If that were true, WF: Grapple wouldn't exist as a feat.

-Hyp.

Really? But the rules for Grapple simple state you make a "melee touch attack." Anything about whether that's done unarmed, or with your weapon, or even with WF:Grapple not RAW but an assumption about the RAW - an interpretation.

WF: Grapple modifies either or both of:

The initial melee attack role.
The grapple checks.

If a monk is starting a grapple (let;s say NOT with a Flurry) and has a BAB of 15 + 4 for DEX from Weapon Finesse (unarmed) what's his attack bonus for the melee touch attack.

It might be 19 from Grapple as written, or it might be 15 if you assume the "melee touch attack" is some sort of special attack roll that does not use any weapon, even "unarmed," which is certainly not stated in "Grapple."

In any case, I see your point. It requires re-writing Grapple to: The melee touch attack to start grapple is weaponless and does not include any modifiers based upon your weapons, including unarmed attack. WF: Grapple does add to this role, however, but not to grapple checks (obviously re-write this according to one;s personal belief about when WF:Grapple apllies.

 

[Artoomis]

Neither is it an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon.

You can't attack with a ray in a Flurry of Blows either. It's not an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon.

-Hyp.

Well, duh. When you are "Grappling" you do not attack with a "Grapple," you make a melee touch attack to start a grapple. Who knows what that really means, see above. It certainly is not clear from the Grapple text.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Really? But the rules for Grapple simple state you make a "melee touch attack."

That's right.

If I'm holding the charge on Inflict Serious Wounds, I can deliver it in one of two ways.

With a melee touch attack, or with an unarmed strike.

If I use the melee touch attack option, WF: US does not apply, and I roll against their touch AC. If I use the unarmed strike, WF: US applies, but I have to roll against their normal AC, and I deal US damage as well as spell damage if I hit.

So there's another example of where a melee touch attack is distinct from an Unarmed Strike.

If I were holding the charge on my ISW and wished to use Flurry of Blows, I would have to deliver the spell with an Unarmed Strike. Melee touch attack is not one of the legal options.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

That's right.

If I'm holding the charge on Inflict Serious Wounds, I can deliver it in one of two ways.

With a melee touch attack, or with an unarmed strike.

If I use the melee touch attack option, WF: US does not apply, and I roll against their touch AC. If I use the unarmed strike, WF: US applies, but I have to roll against their normal AC, and I deal US damage as well as spell damage if I hit.

So there's another example of where a melee touch attack is distinct from an Unarmed Strike.

If I were holding the charge on my ISW and wished to use Flurry of Blows, I would have to deliver the spell with an Unarmed Strike. Melee touch attack is not one of the legal options.

-Hyp.

Hmmm....

By extension, then, you SHOULD be able to start a grapple with an unarmed attack in place of a melee touch attack.

Note that the actual language is "melee touch attack" as opposed to "unarmed melee touch attack" for tripping. That would imply that you could do the grapple melee touch attack even armed!!

It's not written very well, is it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By extension, then, you SHOULD be able to start a grapple with an unarmed attack in place of a melee touch attack.

Not really. It's explicitly presented as an alternate option for touch spells. It isn't, for grappling.

Note that the actual language is "melee touch attack" as opposed to "unarmed melee touch attack" for tripping. That would imply that you could do the grapple melee touch attack even armed!!

Bit hard to "grab" with a mace, though.

It's not written very well, is it.

I don't think anyone's ever made that claim about the Grapple rules

-Hyp.